With The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis the
Pericope-group delivers another collection of valuable insights on
the scribal traditions of arranging, structuring and delimiting biblical
texts. Yet in contrast to previous volumes the focus of these ten contributions,
one of them (by S.E. Porter) again with a New Testament perspective, shifts to
more hermeneutical issues as the title implies. And indeed the contributions
do more than justice to the superscription under which they are combined: the
authors successfully demonstrate—still in varying degrees, but on the whole in
a consistent and conclusive form—the relevance of traditions of textual
arrangement for the interpretation of both individual biblical passages
as well as for books as a whole. Interestingly, the majority of the
contributions deliberate on pericopes from the prophetic corpus, which can be
ascribed to the obvious problem of the punctual opacity of these texts. For exactly
this reason Unit Delimitation may be of great value as the following summaries
outline.

Framed by an enjoyable anecdote from his student days, R. de Hoop's
Unit Delimitation and Exegesis: Isaiah 56 as an Introduction to the
Theme offers an interesting interpretation of the beginning of so-called
Trito-Isaiah. While Isa 56:9 is generally understood as the opening of
a new passage, de Hoop demonstrates that the gap between 56:1-8 and the
following verse is not as wide as often assumed. By checking into the layout of
various manuscripts (Codex Leningradensis, 1QIsaa, Codex Sinaiticus,
Codex Ambrosianus, each displayed in illustrating plates) he is able to
discern the scribal tradition of putting 56:9 in direct connection with the
preceding passage—a fact totally obscured by the text-critical layout of modern
editions like BHS. Consequently, he proposes that this should be reflected in
the interpretation of the opening of Trito-Isaiah. As de Hoop sees it, 56:9
is not an ironic or sarcastic remark directed against Israel,
but joins in the vision of universal hope.
Yet, as he alerts, the verse contains a polemic undertone because the
universality is restricted to those who keep the covenantal
commandments. Thus, de Hoop understands the entirety of Isa 56 as a commentary on Isa
55 as well as a hermeneutical key to the following chapters. De Hoop's essay
offers an illustrating demonstration of the exegetical possibilities of
Delimitation Criticism.

With Textual, Literary and Delimitation Criticism: The Case of Jeremiah
29 in MT and LXX R. de Hoop delivers a contribution to the ongoing debate about the historical
priority of LXX or MT in the book of Jeremiah. He weighs the arguments favoring the priority of MT and
finds that they are not applicable to Jer 29 (MT) / 36 (LXX). In using his proposed version of
a polyglot Bible edition (cf. De Hoop, R., Diverging Traditions, pp.
185-214, in: Korpel, M.C.A. et alii (eds.), Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope 6),
Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2007), he analyzes various quantitative differences
between LXX and MT, the issue of Ketib / Qere in a supposed LXX-Vorlage and the overall
rhetorical structure of Jer 29. He thereby illustrates that - at least in the case
of Jer 29 (MT) - the preference should be given to a historical priority of LXX,
arguing amongst other things with the poetical nature of the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX which he outlines in a
characterization of Jer 36 (LXX). The main impetus for Unit Delimitation in this
contribution lies in the usage of the named polyglot edition. And indeed a synoptic
layout as given there seems helpful - at least for Jer.

In the light of Van der Toorn's thesis of the extensive influence of Temple scribal
activity on the preservation of prophetic words, J. Dekker treats the much discussed verse of Isa 8:18,
hoping to illuminate further the phrase binding up the testimony. In the
accordingly named contribution Bind up the Testimony: Isaiah 8:16 and the Making
of the Hebrew Bible he outlines that with respect to different delimitation
traditions the verse should be read in correlation with the subsequent
verses and—following this and based upon literary connections—as the prophet's
reply to 8:11-15. Consideration of the meaning of belimmudāy, as well as that of
tzôr and chatôm (all 8:16) in view of various intertextual
connections (for the latter e.g. Job 14:17 and Isa 29:11) leads him to
conclude that writing down the prophet's words must have originated in a
prophetic community and at the impetus of the historical Isaiah himself. While
the cross references concerning the sealing seem plausible, more effort should
have been exerted in broadening the data that serves as the foundation for
Dekker's assumptions—especially since the examinations in Unit Delimitation,
undertaken only to a limited extent, do little to promote his thesis.

G. Goswell takes a closer look at The Divisions of the Book of Daniel.
After providing a catalogue of functions of textual partitioning (1.
differentiation/disconnection, 2. connection of related material, 3.
highlighting certain material, 4. downplaying textual features), he
analyzes three levels of divisions throughout the book of Dan: the traditional
structuring (by the editors, Masoretes or respectively Langton) into
chapters, paragraphs and lessons, the genre division (narration ó vision)
and the partitioning through the change of language.
His observations lead him to the conclusion that all four cited functional
types of divisions are present in the book. And thus, the divisions are in fact
a hermeneutical guide to the text, which itself comments on the text and
leads (or sometimes misleads) the reader. While the categorization of the
four functions seems basically plausible, it should however be better
founded in secondary literature so that it will not be mistakenly considered
arbitrary. Additionally some kind of summary presentation of the findings would
have been helpful. Regardless, the contribution represents an elucidating und
profound study.

M.C.A. Korpel's The Demarcation of Hymns and Prayers in the Prophets
(I) focuses on the identification of poetic passages in prophetic
texts, or more precisely, as the title suggests, of hymns and prayers. With
sideward glances at the attempts at genre definitions by form criticism and at near
eastern parallels—where a few illuminative analogies of the integration of
hymnic passages in prophetic contexts are to be found—she looks deeper into
Hos 6:1-3 and Isa 42:10-12. By fruitfully applying observations from various
manuscripts, she comes to the conclusion that each of them is an integral part of a
larger section, Hos being words of royal speakers quoted by the prophet, and
Isa representing not a Psalm, but strictly speaking a prophetic adaptation
of the hymnic style (134). She preliminarily concludes that hymns and prayers
in the prophetic corpus are firmly embedded in the context (135) and this
has to be accounted for in interpreting the texts. Thus, in her well considered
and balanced deliberations she is able to demonstrate the profitability of
Delimitation Criticism in exegetical contemplation without denying the
limits of this method. One curiously awaits the forthcoming parts of this
larger study.

Following James Muilenberg's famous presidential SBL-address in 1968,
J.R. Lundbom aims in Delimitation of Units in the Book of Jeremiah at demarcating textual
units in Jeremiah by using rhetorical criticism because he is convinced that
Jeremianic discourse is structured not according to form-critical models, but
according to canons of ancient Hebrew rhetoric (153). After establishing criteria
for delineating textual units (e.g. shifts in text type or genre, messenger
formulas, inclusion, parallelisms, keywords etc.), he focuses on the
delimitation of oracles in Jeremiah's poetry (in Jer 2:5-9; 2:33-37;
5:1-9; 8:18-21; 8:22-9:1; 20:7-13; 20:14-18) as well as his prose (in Jer
7:1-15; 31:23-40). In this study the method of Unit Delimitation accounts
merely for a background feature of his observations: he consults manuscripts at
various points but only applies the data en passant and not always as
precisely as would be desirable. Furthermore, a concentration on a smaller number
of passages with more illustrations from the Hebrew text, would probably
have been preferable. Also a final summary or conclusion would have been very
helpful.

Linguistically speaking the question of the nature or even the function
of a paragraph remains unresolved. In Pericope Markers and the
Paragraph: Textual and Linguistic Implications S.E. Porter addresses exactly this
question with profound textual contemplations and an illuminative
outcome. In an instructive summary of current approaches he lists seven main
categories for establishing the notion of paragraph: conjunctions/particles,
cohesion/segmentation, participants/pronouns/anaphora, referential
distance, topic, theme, literary and text types. While the usage of this
terminology is still somewhat foreign in the practice of exegesis, his application of
these categories to Mark and Romans in the Codex Sinaiticus offers important
insights. First and foremost the ancient Greek scribal tradition put a tremendous
focus on formal structuring elements in texts like conjunctions rather than
on aspects of content. Porter subsequently establishes a hierarchy of
paragraphing features from more to less formal: 1. Mode (conjunctions, cohesion), 2.
Tenor (participants, referential distance), 3. Field (topic, theme, word
order). He continually observes differences with respect to partitioning in the two analyzed
text types: while narrative texts are structured more by formal
characteristics like conjunctions, in expository texts as Romans other features (e.g.
participant structure) are emphasized. Thus, he concludes, the ancient scribes had
a distinctive and understandable, yet not explicitly defined notion of paragraph.

G.T.M. Prinsloo argues that both the rather new literary approach as
well as the traditional redaction-critical approach cannot solve the
problems with the textual structure of the book Habakkuk. Thus, in Petuchot/Setumot and the structure of
Habakkuk: Evaluation the Evidence he seeks to establish a third perspective as
an alternative to the two traditional approaches - Unit Delimitation. While
the literary and redaction-critical approaches fail to compile conclusive
evidence for a commonly accepted textual division (neither synchronic nor
diachonic), Prinsloo gathers data from several manuscripts out of various scribal
traditions (Qumran, Wadi Murabbaat, Nahal Hever, Masoretic texts), arranged in
illuminative tables. This data shows a surprisingly consistent
convention of delimiting the text over the three chapters: 1:1-17; 2:1-4; 2:5-8;
2:9-11; 2:12-14; 2:15-17; 2:18; 2:19-20; 3:1-7; 3:8-13; 3:14-19. These
delimitations in fact contradict most of the present approaches to the structure of the
book and thus presenting a challenge to exegesis, as Prinsloo states. In so
doing he correctly raises the pivotal (and often unanswered) question regarding
the criterion for demarcating textual units. But while Prinsloos findings should
without doubt be pondered upon in the future, it seems dangerous to expect that
the approach of delimitation criticism uses objective evidence because even
consistent scribal traditions are to be assessed as hermeneutical and
thus fallible approaches in their own right.

Discussing the controversial evidence of an acrostic in Nah 1, K. Spronk
sheds light on some interesting graphical features of the Codices
Alexandrinus and Marchialianus. As he points out in The Line-Acrostic in Nahum 1:
New Evidence from Ancient Greek Manuscripts and from the Literary Analysis
of the Hebrew Text, traces of an acrostically arranged Hebrew Vorlage seem to
be found in the usage of capital letters written in ekthesis in
the ancient texts. Additionally, Spronk refers to intertextual connections
between Ex 34 and various passages in the Dodekapropheton, which are wordplays
alluding to the name of the prophet, the content of his message, or his point of
view. While the argument is not always as compelling as would be desirable
(especially en detail, e.g. as in the seemingly vague
characterization of the beginning of the book as countdown to Nah 1:9), the
demonstrated traces should be pursued further all the same, as they do show some
promise.

In The Abraham Narrative (Gen. 12:1-25:11) in Some Ancient and
Mediaeval Manuscripts: The Exegetical Implications of Delimitation
Criticism S. Tatu compares the paragraphing of the Abraham Cycle in some of the
major biblical manuscripts (Codex Alexandrinus, Samaritan Pentateuch,
Kennicott Bible, Codex Leningradensis; the Qumran manuscripts are too few and not
well preserved, so he treats them only en passant) with his own
analysis of the cycles narrative composition. By presenting the textual divisions
in tables, he is able to demonstrate the far-reaching agreements between
the traditional layout and the literary structure, even despite the
diversity of the different scribal conventions. Yet the actual partitioning in the
manuscripts is highly dependent on the hermeneutical assumptions and
traditions of the editors, as far as he is able to discern. He is still able to
identify some major criteria for the partitioning such as character, topic,
setting, and plot (i.e. the alterations in one or more of these), however,
structuring according to the larger narrative patterns (like scene or episode)
rarely occurs. Even though his analytic terminology and the perspicuity of his tables
could still be enhanced, Tatu delivers an elucidating contribution.

The volume provides extensive and informative indices (author and
biblical texts). Future issues of Pericope should in any case
be proofread more accurately, as more than a few small errors appear in
various articles—especially in several Hebrew passages. Nonetheless, The
Impact of Unit Delimitation represents a collection of instructive
contributions illustrating the possibilities - and limits (cf. the review of Prinsloos
article) - of Unit Delimitation in Biblical exegesis.